memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:A proposal to change Memory Alpha's naming policy
I propose that Memory Alpha's article naming policy be changed so that names from novels, comics and games are accepted as article names. I realize this a very radical proposal but I ask that you think about it carefully before forming an opinion. Memory Alpha has a lot of Unnamed pages and it's really annoying having to scroll back and forth on them until I find what I'm looking for. If we had only a few really large ones, it wouldn't be so bad because I could use Ctrl+F to find a specific character. But instead we have an separate Unnamed page for every possible sub-category and they seem to be multiplying all the time. Having 9 different pages for unnamed Deep Space 9 personnel is pretty confusing and links often go to the wrong page, due to information being reorganized and the links not being updated. Another problem is that a lot of the characters and species on Unnamed pages actually do have names. The names are not canon, but calling them Unnamed isn't really correct. Canon just means that writers of future Star Trek stories are (usually) not allowed to contradict it. It doesn't mean that non-canon stories are somehow "less real" as many fans seem to think, since none of it's real anyway. A third problem is the vagueness of Memory Alpha's current naming policy. Different interpretations of the policy have been the cause of almost every major argument on Memory Alpha, with Talk:Unnamed humanoids (22nd century)#Redux being the most recent example. Allowing names from novels, comics and games to be used as article titles will liberate many dozens of characters and species from the Unnamed pages, making the info much easier to find. And there is already precedent for this on the wiki: Kamarag is from the Star Trek IV novelization, Jaron is from the Unification novelization, Arcadian, Ariolo, Arkenite, Bzzit Khaht, Efrosian, Kasheeta and Xelatian are from the Star Trek IV Sourcebook Update. These violate our current naming policy but no one's done anything about it because no one wants to get rid of a perfectly good name. So why not continue doing it? I realize there are situations where a character has more than one non-canon name. In these cases, we could use the name that is used the largest number of stories or the name from the most recent story. It doesn't really matter how we decide as long as the policy is clear-cut. This will end the incessant arguments about which background names are official enough to be article titles. --NetSpiker (talk) 10:10, December 25, 2016 (UTC) :That's a hard no. Too many of those names from novels, comics, games, etc change from time to time, as has been seen by your attempts to rename things on MB. -- sulfur (talk) 11:37, December 25, 2016 (UTC) I'm not sure what you're saying about my "attempts to rename things". What exactly are you referring to? I already addressed how to deal with characters having multiple names, so you can't dismiss my proposal on those grounds. Besides, some characters have multiple names in canon: Nooni'a'''n Soong/Nooni'e'n Soong, Br'a'ttain/Br'i'ttain. '''Ian Andrew' Troi/'Alex' Troi, K'ei'ran MacDuff/K'ie'ran MacDuff. We can deal with this problem the same way we've already been dealing with it. --NetSpiker (talk) 12:07, December 25, 2016 (UTC) ::It's Christmas Day (not sure why you thought today was a good day to raise this), so I'll make this brief. No. This represents a fundamental shift in not only naming policy, but MA:CANON, MA:RESOURCE, and the scope of the project itself. It does not get rid of discussions about naming, just shifts them to new areas (which books, comics, games to use; arguments about numbers of appearances; and more). To do solely to address an issue you have with our approach to characters that are not named in valid resources is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Now, I've spent far longer than I planned on this, so I will return to what I should be spending today on. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 12:59, December 25, 2016 (UTC) No one's forcing you to respond immediately to a new discussion. By all means, enjoy your Christmas. I understand that this will be a fundamental change to Memory Alpha. The question is whether this change is a good thing or a bad thing. If we decide that names from newer stories supercede names from older stories, then that will get rid of all arguments, since we know exactly when each story was released and we won't have to count appearances. --NetSpiker (talk) 22:03, December 25, 2016 (UTC) :And yet, even in "recent" stories, John Byrne hasn't felt oblighed to use the same names as the novels have. So... when Byrne puts out a new comic and names someone something different from the latest novel, do we have to move the page to suit? Again... no. -- sulfur (talk) 00:57, December 26, 2016 (UTC) I wasn't aware that Byrne has used names that contradicted the novels. Can you tell me what they are? --NetSpiker (talk) 01:34, December 26, 2016 (UTC) :::I also think no for the reasons already stated above. --| TrekFan Open a channel 08:56, December 26, 2016 (UTC) ::::I must also pile on with oppose, for the reasons already given. 31dot (talk) 09:43, December 26, 2016 (UTC) :::::Another strong oppose, sorry. For the reasons stated above and probably some more. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:10, December 27, 2016 (UTC) ::::::We've compiled a list to help in this here, if you're interested. --LauraCC (talk) 17:08, December 29, 2016 (UTC)